“By grafting onto the statute the element of intent, the Second Circuit’s decision establishes an unpredictable, fact-intensive inquiry for CAFA mass action jurisdiction that is not required by the statute itself,” the petition argued.
U.S. Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse dissented, asserting that the Second Circuit should have ruled in favor of federal jurisdiction because the cases were consolidated under a state provision designed for claims that “should be tried together.”
Plaintiffs’ Response
The plaintiffs countered that the Second Circuit applied a reasonable standard. “The Second Circuit asks whether ‘a reasonable observer would conclude that plaintiffs acted with the intention of bringing about a joint trial,’ not whether a psychic would,” they argued in their opposition brief.
John Bruegger, counsel for the plaintiffs, expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision to leave the Second Circuit ruling intact. “We are very pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision and look forward to pursuing the matter further in Connecticut state court,” he said.
Implications
By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court allows the Zantac carcinogen claims to move forward in state court, potentially setting a precedent for how courts interpret CAFA’s mass action provisions.
